Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Raymond Johnson v. Scott Clark Honda, 14-1504 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1504
Filed: Oct. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1504 RAYMOND A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT CLARK HONDA; EEOC; REUBEN DANIELS, JR.; SHALANNA L. PIRTLE; GLORIA J. BARNETT; RANDY THREAT; PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00485-RJC-DCK) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1504 RAYMOND A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT CLARK HONDA; EEOC; REUBEN DANIELS, JR.; SHALANNA L. PIRTLE; GLORIA J. BARNETT; RANDY THREAT; PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00485-RJC-DCK) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond A. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Shalanna Lee Pirtle, Stacy Kaplan Wood, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Danielle Jeanne Hayot, Barbara L. Sloan, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond A. Johnson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Scott Clark Honda, No. 3:13-cv-00485-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer